Evolution's Probability CH 04

Commentary: This posting is in a series of posts summarizing the book, "Lights In The Sky and Little Green Men" by Hugh Ross, Kenneth Samples, and Mark Clark. Hugh Ross is a scientist in physics and Clark has a PhD in political science. The other authors specialize in social sciences, philosophies, and international relations. The full series can be reviewed at UFOs an Alternative Look.

 Evolution's Probability

Hugh Ross writes that according to long held naturalistic beliefs life on Earth is attributed to a simple mix of the right hydrocarbons, the right mineral rich pond or mud, and sparked into life by a sufficiently powerful enough energy source that will produce biological life spontaneously. Then over sufficiently long enough periods of time the life form will evolve further into more complex life forms. Since this process occurred on Earth then it holds true that it will occur on billions of other planets. Now, despite being previously established in earlier chapters that life on other planets and even Earth is an impossibility. The consideration is that life evolved naturally elsewhere and then was transported to Earth by some sort of mechanism whether natural or created. Four scientific conclusions are considered by Ross:

1. The Earth has not existed long enough for life to naturally evolve.
2. The conditions on early Earth were not favorable for life to naturally evolve.
3. Life could not have come to Earth from space.
4. Life is too complex to have arisen through evolutionary processes on Earth or anywhere else.

On the matter of time, Ross concludes that there has not been enough time for evolutionary processes and regardless of the amount of time, the conditions on Earth were not conducive to fragile life emerging spontaneously. Evolutionist acknowledge that these transitions take eons of time to occur. Ross points to several instances in which life abruptly appeared several times under extremely hostile conditions of interstellar bombardment that occurred for long periods in early Earth. He points out that the archeological record indicates that life appeared very rapidly after the surface of the Earth cooled. He further points to the enormous complexity of life transitioning from inorganic to organic and inanimate to animated.

On the soup kitchen theories, Ross concludes that the primordial soups or other substrates that incubated early protoplasmal life utterly fail due to conditions hostile to life in the early Earth. Ross points to scientific evidence that primordial soups are not possible. He further complains that school text books continue to promote these soup kitchen ideas despite the evidence to the contrary.

Ross directs his attention to life from space indicating that evolution proponents turned to the possibility that life was transplanted or transported to Earth via natural or created means. In Ross’s discourse, he considers life from Mars, from space rubble, and life that rides stellar winds. He determines that these sources and natural transports are too hostile to perpetuate life through space in some sort of pollination process. Ross finally concludes that panspermia is not possible because of the hostile conditions of space towards carbon based life and the lack of a suitable point of origin for life to evolve.

Ross then considers the problem of complexity. He notes the wide complexity gap between a few amino acids in a solution and the simplest living cell. Ross looks to a molecular biophysicist, Harold Morowitz, who calculated the size of this gap and determined that the odds were stacked against natural re-assembly of the simplest life form. Ross then discusses how naturalists reject this finding and seek a series of ill-fated responses;

1. Sequencing flexibility
2. Simplicity
3. Multitalented RNA

Ross determines that RNA and the cell cannot exist exclusive of each other. They must exist simultaneously. Given the observations there has not been sufficient time, Morowitz’s odds, and the requirement for RNA and the cell to come into existence simultaneously there is no hope that life has evolved anywhere in the universe - at all.

Ross closes this chapter discussing the gloomy prospects for evolution and life elsewhere in the universe. He points to the improbability of life occurring even on Earth. He then discusses the fact life does exist and poses the question where did it come from? He then theorizes an intelligence from outside the universe caused life. He concludes discussing the subject of the book, extraterrestrials. Then poses the question could intelligent life physically travel through space to the planet Earth for scholarly and/or warlike purposes?

Commentary: Ross begins by looking at the Abiogenesis hypothesis then explores Spatial Panspermia hypothesis and finally considers complexity. An interesting note, the history of evolution appears to have been plagarized from science-fiction more than developed from science.  In 1752 Ben Franklin flew a kite and harnessed energy from a lightning strike. Scientists began to experiment based on Franklin's finding and quickly learned that living tissue is electrically responsive. The author Mary Shelley was observing these experiments and became inspired to write 'Frankenstein: A Modern Prometheus' in which she asked the question did his soul come from the Earth or from God. The novel was published in 1818 and became the talk of the coffee houses. Fifteen years later Darwin set out on the HMS Beagle for a five year voyage and returned in 1838. By 1858 Darwin's inspiration to write 'On The Origin of a Species' and 'The Descent of Man' had Frankenstein overtones from 30 years prior. Darwinism when regressed to the abiogenesis hypothesis is the soup kitchen theories of inaminate matter being jolted into life electrically. During 1870, Darwin suggested a little warn pond that had the right ingredients for life to originate from a life giving force - possibly lightning.  About 1870 the Frankenstein book was revised adding in the laboratory scenes in which Van De Graft generators built up charges and jolted the monster into reanimated life. However, life in itself is not purely electrical as the human essence seems to be something still elusive to most humans and science. What is the soul?

As for the complexity argument, physicist Richard Feynman (an atheist) and microbiologist Matt Ridley (an secularist) have some interesting thoughts. Feynman is noted for his work in quantum physics and was a pioneer in quantum computing and nanotechnology. Feynman hypothesized a universe that was computationally organized based on a tri-state logic. Ridley leveraged this notion discussing that the Genome was 4 bits of information G, C, A, and T embedded in a complex molecular strand. Additionally, Ridley pointed out that information acts on the Genome;  timing, duration, and sequencing of a gene firing. According to Ridley, nanotechnology, intelligent worker molecules, gather the information and endow biological life. When asked where all this information and intelligence comes from Ridley quipped that there had to be, "... a Genome Operating Device, G.O.D."

When contrasting creationism to evolution theory from an argumentation perspective, the evolution argument requires more assumptions underpinning the belief.  In general, world views are built on relatively good assumptions from which the knowledge grows. This is epistemic truths. Undermine the base theory and all higher level arguments become unsupported. The Judeo-Christian worldview requires three assumptions; 

1. God exists, 
2. the Bible is his infallible word, 
3. and Jesus Christ is who he says he is.  

Evolution is built on several assumptions from its underlying premises.

1. Nature is self-originating.
2. Nature is self perpetuating.
3. Nature is self-descritpive.
4. Nature is self-defining.
5. Random action is a naturalistic phenomenon.
6. Infinite is a naturalistic phenomenon.
7. Nature increases in complexity as a natural phenomenon.

Based on the KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid,  principle, less faith is needed to believe in Christianity than Evolution.  But it gets more interesting. In mathematics, Goedel's law states that nothing can be self-descriptive or self-defining.  The scientific law of diminishing returns states that nothing can be self-perpetuating nor increase in complexity. The concept of enthalpy was introduced to suggest that momentary increases in complexity occur when a plant or animal gestates then grows. However, this is subject to the overall law of diminishing returns. In short, everything is falling apart not increasing in complexity. In mathematics, randomness is a surreal concept in the surreal realm that is approximated by pushing any repeating patterns to a negligibly rare occurrence known as pseudo-randomness. In science, randomness cannot exist as otherwise repeatable experiments are not possible. Science is ordered, the opposite of random. In mathematics, infinite is a surreal concept used for folley with ordered equations and not of the real realm.  In science and mathematics, infinite is an order of magnitude that is unbounded on the upper and lower limits.  Atom smashing experiments discovered the boundary limits of space-time. Hence, the universe is not infinite. Thus, the universe being of the natural, infinite is not ascribed to nature.  Evolution draws on assumptions that are not supported by science or mathematics. Hence, evolution theory fundamentally falls apart. Evolution stands (or collapses) on its on merits. There is no need to prove or disprove Christianity's creation in order to disprove evolution. Creation stands on its own merits independent of any other theory too. 

References:

Ross, H., Samples, K., & Clark, M. (2002). Lights in the sky and little green men: a rational christian look at UFOs and extraterrestrials. Navpress. Colorado.